This blog addresses the fatal flaw at the core of capitalism as a system of human psycho-socio-political-economic collective self-reproduction, a flaw which ultimately renders it a self-DIS-organizing, self-destroying system -- as is becoming increasingly evident. It also details the successor system to capitalism, the new system that represents the higher, positive way forward for humanity: Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY, or EQUITISM.

Friday, December 28, 2012

This blog-entry contains the eighth and final part of my serialization, within
this blog, of the Equitist Advocacy Group's groundbreaking manifesto entitled "Malady
and Remedy:What's Wrong, and What to
Do About It", with my own edits added to their text, for
its improvement [at least, I think so!].

In my opinion, this text is too important to be treated as any kind of
"sacred text".

It needs to be "improved upon", and circulated, «samizdat»,
worldwide, in such "improved" forms --i.e., in as many versions as are seen as being needed, by every author
who thinks that [s]he can "improve" upon it [including this one].

I have even added a contiguous passage, marked with my initials below.

Here is a link to the original version, including to its "endnotes"
--

"We of the Equitist Advocacy group reject violence as a method of social progress.

Nonviolence is a key to the effectiveness of efforts for social
improvement. For violence corrupts its initiators, converting them, even
if their violence is "successful", into but the new incumbents of the
very evil that they had intended to overthrow, thus resulting, for them,
in a defeat which could not be more total."

As the core plutocracy tightens their noose upon global humanity, mass demonstrations -- such as those that have already arisen in Greece, in Spain, in Italy, in France, and even in the U.K. and the U.S., some in association with the Global Peoples' Assemblies Movement, and with the Occupy Wall Street Movement -- but of increasing amplitude, are likely.

The core plutocracy may increasingly use these demonstrations as an excuse for mass arrests of the "terrorists", the citizens who participate in those demonstrations, for the escalation of maiming, crippling, and lethal violence against those citizens, for declarations of "national emergency" and "martial law", and for the initial inception of their planned "Eugenics" ["concentration"] camps.

The grisly spectacle of Syria -- of a 'servant-dictatorship' turning its core-plutocracy-supplied guns, tanks, artillery, jet bombers, and core-plutocracy-trained secret police mass assassination squads, against its own people, their homes, their cities, and their children -- may represent a kind of "dress rehearsal" for the tactics planned later for Greece, for Spain, for Italy, and for France, as well as for the U.K. and the U.S.: 'stealth genocide' -- through mass-murderous "austerity" and financial-plutocracy-induced impoverishment -- becoming open genocide.

The people of Syria were seduced by the democratic moment of the "Arab Spring" uprising -- which the 'Rocke-Nazis' and the 'Rothe-Nazis' are now usurping as a mere means to transition to new, "updated", "modernized" 'servant-dictatorships' in much of the Middle East -- into beginning an initially non-violent, peaceful-mass-demonstrations-of-citizens-based democratic revolution of their own.

The core-plutocracy-controlled, so-called "international community" has, since Assad's genocide began, left the Syrian people high and dry, the core plutocracy merely voyeuring upon Assad's mass murder of the Syrian people, as they did during their earlier-contrived genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina, continuing to supply Assad with the arms needed to continue the slaughter, and endeavoring to squeeze out as much "population reduction" as possible from the Syrian "civil war", before they finally intervene, only to install a new, "updated", "modernized" 'servant-dictatorship' in Syria.

The kind of draconian "austerity" "shock treatment" being tested round-after-round, year-after-year, upon, e.g., Greece, the very homeland and "founding-ground" of "Western Civilization", is already an accelerated form of "population reduction" -- of "stealth genocide" -- as can be seen also in the post-Stalinist, "shock treatment" devolution of Russia.

When draconian "austerity" is imposed by the plutocracy, with the excuse of "sovereign over-indebtedness", an indebtedness manipulated into existence by GoldmanSachs, and other core plutocracy "bubble-engineering" financial institution agents -- when pensions are cut -- or cut-off altogether -- wages slashed, homes confiscated -- and masses rendered homeless -- jobs eliminated for nearly half the working population or more, especially for the young, it is not just hardship that is imposed: peopledie as a direct and indirect result. It is massdeath that is imposed, particularly, at first, among the elderly. It is "population reduction" that is imposed. It is Rockefeller "eugenics" that is imposed.

"Austerity" is a core plutocracy euphemism for what is in fact 'stealth genocide', 'stealtheugenics'.

This global tightening of the financial and economic noose that the core plutocracy has placed around the neck of the rest of humanity, carried on by its many agents -- the IMF, the World Bank, the "Fed", the National and Supra-National "Central Banks", the EU, etc. -- is bound to provoke a public backlash.

The core plutocracy knows that only too well, and they are prepared -- and are preparing -- for it, as we write.

They have already repealed -- de facto -- the U. S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, e.g., via the "USA Patriot Act" -- in truth, the 'USA Traitor Act' -- and via the institutionalization and "legalization" of "warrantless wiretapping", of NSA robot-surveillance of every e-mail message and every phone-call, of the "warrantless" stealth searches of citizens' homes, of "indefinite detention" of citizens, without charge, without recourse to the courts, without habeas corpus, and of '''extra-judicial execution of citizens by executive order''' -- andalso have de facto repealed, or are de facto repealing, the homologous civil liberties laws all over Europe, all "justified" via "Burning of the Reichstag" false-flag exercises such as 911, as well as by other means.

Massive recent purchases of "dum dum" bullets -- which kill via massive bleeding and organ damage against which no medical intervention can avail -- by U.S. agencies such as NOAA and the Social Security Administration, as well as by the "Department of Homeland Security" Gestapo, have been reported.

The 'Rocke-Nazi' orchestrated "Fiscal Cliff" soap opera in the U.S. may be designed to provide cover for the core plutocracy to trigger a new, drastically-deeper phase of their bubble-engineered'Global Great Depression II', a la the 1931 Rothschild Credit-Anstalt default trigger, that plunged the global financial system into the pit of 1933, and beyond, during their engineered 'Global Great Depression I'.

Of course, the core plutocracy and its agencies will attempt to disarm the populace, as much as possible, before they impose their planned state-capitalist, "eugenocidal" police states worldwide.

They will "create incidents" and mass media juggernauts to drive public opinion to accept de facto repeals, e.g., of the U. S. Bill Of Rights' Second Amendment.

In this context, we recommend that the movement of protest against the atrocities of "austerity" that are being imposed in Europe, in the U.S., and worldwide, focus upon peaceful mass demonstrations, avoiding any initiation of mass violence.

Of course, the agents of the core plutocracy will initiate violence, and will attempt to provoke a violent reaction from demonstrators.

Such provocations provide opportunities for these agencies of the plutocracy to apply their crippling and maiming "technologies", and their "population reduction" methods -- and to "justify" martial law, etc.

Given all of this, we recommend immediate -- and increasing -- recourse to methods of effective protest that do not require citizens to expose themselves to maiming, mayhem, and murder on the streets, by the core plutocracy's proto-police-state apparatuses.

Massboycotts of the products and "services" of the plutocracy-owned mega-corporations-- oil companies, financial corporations,[pseudo-]food companies, [pseudo-medicine] pharmaceutical drug companies['lethal side-effects and autism companies'], mass media corporations, etc. -- that are prostituting the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government to impose their "eugenocide" via draconian "austerity", etc.-- can still exercise tremendous leverage over the core plutocracy, hitting them where they "live".

[end M.D.]

The mission of the Equitist Advocacy group
is to help catalyze the popular movement to implement a re-foundation of global
human society upon the principles of 'generalized equity'.

We seek to accomplish this mission by promoting
the promulgation of 'Equitarian' constitutional amendments, of their enabling
legislation, and of the democratic election of candidates committed to their
implementation.

This implementation is designed to create, at
length, a transition from the darkening present, to a far brighter future.

The 'Equitarian Reform' that we propose is
designed to drive a social transition out of the increasingly unjust, 'in-equitarian',
incipiently totalitarian, multi-genocidal, [state-/private-]capitalist,
monopolist/oligopolist/plutocratic political-economy of the present.

The 'Equitarian Reform' is designed to drive a
social transition in to an 'Equitarian', comprehensively democratic
political-economy, founded upon the constitutional establishment of four new
species of social, universal, fundamental, human-rights-based equity.

These four new species of socio-economic equity
arise in the supersession of, and as necessary supplementary opposition to, the
existing, first, and original species of equity: capital-equity.

That is, that single, presently-elaborated species
of equity is, by name, 'internality-equity', the capital-equity
stockholder-rights-based, ownership-rights-based principle of "one share,
one vote"; of economic-equity stockholder democracy,
however much that principle may be, presently, honored mainly "in the
breach".

'Citizen Externality Equity' — This new species of citizen equity is proposed for implementation
via a constitutional requirement that each local operating unit of each
enterprise that imposes significant "externalities" or
"external costs" upon its local public(s) — e.g., toxic
pollution — must incorporate a democratically-elected, locally-elected,
publicly-elected, public board of public directors, counterpart to the
existing, standard, local "management committee", or "local
governing board", appointed by the enterprise's head office private
board of directors, with the public board and the private board, thus,
having co-authority over the annual 'externalities operating budget' of
that local operating unit, with recourse to a special tribunal in the
event of deadlock.

The resulting structure of enterprise board governance would no longer be
"uni-cameral"; we would have transformed it into a
"bi-cameral" structure.

We members of the "grassroots" voting public, especially
those of us local to each such externalities-generating enterprise, may be
impacted — often fatally — by the externalities output of that enterprise.
However, today, under present social relations, we have little recourse.
We have little recourse, unless we own the offending capital, or unless we
can afford to finance costly-and-uncertain litigation under capital-equity
as the dominant form of '''social''' equity, against often
“ultra-deep-pocketed” corporate opponents.

The second "houses", the new, "popular houses" of the
popularly-elected public-directors will give every participating member of
the "grassroots", voting public: (1) a voice in setting the annual
"budget" of such externalities that each such local operating
unit is legally permitted to produce, (2) a voice in setting the rate of
taxation for the 'externalities taxes' that each such local operating unit
would be legally required to pay for the externalities that it is still
permitted to impose upon the public, and upon its environment in general,
and (3) a voice in the allocation of the new public revenues so generated,
for the remediation of the social damages induced by those externalities
still allowed, etc.

'Citizen Birthright Equity' — This new species of citizen equity is proposed for implementation
via a constitutional requirement which establishes that each and every
child born into equitable society shall be endowed, by that society, with
a lifetime social trust fund, sufficient to support the expected lifetime
healthcare, education, home purchase, retirement pension, and other
social-baseline life necessities of that new citizen, with that
individual's disposition rights over those societal funds pre-defined and
regulated so as to avert their misuse, and so as to mitigate the potential
“moral hazards” involved therein.

These 'Citizen Birthright' trust funds would be financed by a tax, on the
'Citizen Stewardship Equity' use of social property — e.g., on
socially-owned production plant and equipment, ceded by
society-as-a-whole, for use by a given, particular stewardship enterprise.
This tax would, thus, constitute a '''social rent''' for those stewards'
use of social property, designed to generate funds for the maintenance and
expansion of societal self-investment, both human and instrumental, as
well as to incentivize Citizen Stewardship Equity cooperative enterprises
to economize on their consumption of means of production.

'Citizen Stewardship Equity' — This new species of citizen equity is designed to give the
associated producers direct access to means of production, thereby gradually
supplanting and superseding the capital-relation -- which is founded upon
the denial of direct access to means of production for the producers -- by
superseding the wagéd-labor and salaried-labor relationships, which latter
form the core of the capital-relation. This new species of equity entails the
constitutional empowerment of each citizen to participate in the
co-formation of, and the democratic, 'one steward, one vote' co-conduct of
the production and of the democratic collective self-management of,
localized, enterprise-level associations of producers (i.e., socialized producers'
cooperatives) on a 'one citizen, one vote' basis.

This means that each such citizen-producer would be empowered to act as a
co-steward of that part of the total social property — in the form of,
e.g., production plant and equipment — granted and '''rented''' to that
citizen's qualified producers’-association, as collective self-employer,
by a local, public, social bank, itself also a 'Citizen Stewardship
Equity' co-stewardship association, democratically self-managed by its own
citizen-producers, as collective self-employees.

This 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' right would include the right of each
such citizen co-steward of such social property in-use to an equal share
in the net profits of enterprise generated by that cooperative association
of producers, as well as to a — typically unequal — base-salary in return
for the collectively required productive participation in, and
contribution to, that association for production, as democratically
decided by the assembly of the co-stewards of that cooperative enterprise.
Payment of those profit-shares and
base-salaries to themselves by those co-stewards, would depend upon their
productive contribution, and also upon their collective success in finding
fellow-citizen customers for their product/service output,
fellow-citizens/customers willing to pay a price sufficient to fund that
salary and that profit-sharing, and for whose patronage they would face
competition from other socialized stewardship cooperatives, producing “the
same” similar products and services.

The expected tendencies — of some of the Steward's assemblies, of some of
the Stewardship-based socialized producers' cooperatives — to damage their
local publics for their own separate gain, e.g., in monetary income terms,
by, for example, imposing pollution externalities, to reduce their
internal costs of production, upon those portions of the public which
reside in proximity to such cooperatives' operations, would be checked by
action of the 'Externality-Equity'-based public boards of directors
elected, by the public, to the bi-cameral self-management organs of each
such Stewardship cooperative.

The new 'Externality Equity' rights of the public must apply to such
socialized producers' cooperatives, thus interacting with the new
'Stewardship Equity' rights of all citizens, as well as to any remaining
capitalist enterprises — whether private-capital-based, or joint-stock-based
— equally.

We are indebted, for key aspects of the this 'Citizen Stewardship Equity'
concept, to David Schweickart, via his books Against Capitalism,
and After Capitalism, though the ways in which we
have appropriated the ideas expressed therein is entirely our
responsibility / have not been vetted with him. [e23]

'Citizen Allocational Equity' — names the constitutional requirement that the proceeds of the social
self-investment fund, generated by the '''social rents''' on the value of
social property — e.g., production plant and equipment allocated to
Citizen Stewardship Enterprises — granted by society for use in
stewardship by qualified enterprise-level '''associations-of-producers'''/'''socialized
producers' cooperatives''', will be allocated to the various
geographical localities of the social territory on an equal per-citizen, per-capita
basis. This requirement is designed to ensure that equal populations of
citizens receive equal opportunities to contribute to, and, thus, to
partake in, the production of human and natural biospheric prosperity by
human society as a whole. This constitutional requirement might be subject
to certain temporary "corrections of the past", designed to undo
the adverse social consequences of past inequities of wealth and
opportunity allocation, to the extent that such temporary reparations-allocations
are approved by majority votes in popular referenda.

How
the Equitarian Reform Obviates the 'Technodepreciation' Dilemma of the Capitalist / ‘Wage-Laborist’
System

We envision a popularly-elected 'Office of
the Custodian of Social Property', constrained and regulated also by
the popularly-elected legislature, to administer the provision of means of
production to qualifying 'Stewardship Equity' associations of producers.

This Office should be a publicly-elected administrative entity, and should not
be a 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' socialized producers cooperative.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should not need
to "turn a profit".

Therefore, "losses" due to 'technodepreciation' can be safely
absorbed by the budget of this central custodial institution.

The 'Stewardship Equity' associations should thereby be shielded from such
losses.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' should mediate
the purchase, for each "plant and equipment"-using 'Stewardship Cooperative
association', or 'socialized producers cooperative', of the "plant and
equipment", and of any training in its use, required by that producers
cooperative, from other 'Stewardship association' socialized producers
cooperatives that produce such "plant and equipment", under contract
to the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property'.

The Office should procure and supply that "plant and
equipment", and those training services, both initially, at start-up, and
also when "wear and tear" physical depreciation, or
technological"moral depreciation", require
"plant and equipment"/skills replacement or upgrade.

It is in the interest of human society as a whole to upgrade the standards /
"best practices", in terms of "plant and
equipment"-embodied technology, rapidly throughout an entire branch of
social wealth production, once a new standard / "best practice"
technology clearly emerges in that branch.

It is also in the interest of society as a whole that individual 'Stewardship
Equity' enterprises experience incentives to continue to innovate -- to
continue to develop “the social forces of production” [Marx].

¿If such an enterprise is forced to share its inventions, with
competing 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, through such branch-wide technology
standards/"best practices" upgrades, does that not destroy the
innovating 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise's incentive to continue to innovate?

One part of the incentive for a given 'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprise
to continue to innovate, given that the Citizen Stewards, who are the
producers, are in charge of the enterprise, takes the form of the rewards of
reducing the producers' necessary working time — and with it, of reducing the
length of their working days — through the invention of truly
'''labor-saving''' technologies, truly applied as such.

That incentive persists regardless of whether other, competing Stewardship
enterprises share that same technology, and that same "disposable
time" benefit, or not.

Moreover, a successfully-innovating, productivity-enhancing Stewardship
enterprise will enjoy the profits-advantages of its superior productivity
[profits that are divided into equal shares among all of its member-Stewards], vis-á-vis
its competing, non-innovated Stewardship enterprises, until its innovation
qualifies for a branch-wide standards/"best-practices" upgrade/transition,
e.g., as adjudicated by the [popularly-elected, popularly-recallable] justices
of the 'Social Property Court(s)', i.e., until the general
adoption of its innovation throughout its branch.

The principles of 'economic-democratic' Social Policy at work here include the
following:

Proven technological innovations / productivity advances — the fruits
of "universal labor" — should be diffused as rapidly as possible
throughout the social economy.

'Citizen Stewardship Equity' enterprises — 'socialized producers
cooperatives' — are intended to compete principally on customer
service quality, and on price, not primarily on technology.

For example, there is no great social benefit in
driving such an enterprise to bankruptcy simply because another competing such
enterprise "beats it to the punch" in implementing a technology-based
advance in productivity, as long as the former, initially 'non-innovated'
enterprise — but now using the [new] standard/"best-practices"
"plant and equipment" and training -- remains competitive on price
and customer service quality.

The social objective of the conservation of inter-enterprise market competition
in equitarian society is to avert the severe degradation of customer service
quality, and the abusive escalation of prices, that are both so characteristic
of private-monopoly, and of state-monopoly, capitalist enterprises.

Any 'Stewardship Equity' enterprise should have a legal cause of action, if it
members feel threatened with insolvency, and consequent unemployment /
self-redeployment to other / new Stewardship enterprises for its members -- or
even if they merely feel that their Stewards' /- members' profits-sharing is
being markedly diminished -- by innovation(s) in the means of production,
including in skill-sets, fielded by one or more of its competing Stewardship
enterprises.

Of course, it must prove that its “feelings” are
empirically accurate, in the special 'Social Property Court(s)',
if the case that it has brought to Court is to prevail.

If it does not prevail, it will incur the costs of
the court proceedings that it initiated.

That is, such an enterprise should have the right to "bring" this
"cause of action" before the popularly-elected, popularly-recallable
jurists of the 'Social Property Court(s)', to see if it can
prevail upon the jury of the Court to order a '''standards / best practices
transition''' for its branch of wealth production.

Such a '''transition''' order would generalize the innovation of its
competitor(s) to all other Stewardship enterprises competing in the same branch
as well, the plaintiff enterprise included.

"Prevailing" in such a case, obtaining such a
"standards/best-practices transition" order, would activate the
'techno-depreciation insurance' coverages, for '''retooling and retraining''',
of all adversely-impacted enterprises in the branch, including of the plaintiff
enterprise — of all such enterprises, holding "plant and equipment"
social property, in stewardship, that would, by that order, be declared
"obsolete".

All Stewardship Equity Enterprises wishing to be
protected by this ‘technodepreciation insurance’ coverage would pay a monthly
premium to defray the social costs of this insurance.

The 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property' would be engaged
by that court order.

That Office would then arrange for the production of new standard
/ best practices "plant and equipment" for all of the consenting, ‘technodepreciation-insured’,
obsolete-"plant-and- equipment"-holding enterprises in that branch, by
contracting with Stewardship enterprises that specialize in production of such
means of production.

That Office would deliver the contractual allotments of the
resulting new social property / means of production thus procured, after its
production was completed, to each of those ‘technodepreciation-insured’ obsolete
"plant and equipment" holders, in exchange for their obsolete
"plant and equipment" holdings, and together with any requisite
training programs, for their Citizen Stewards, in the safe and effective use of
the new standard / "best practices" means of production.

All of the entailed procurement costs should be at the expense of the budget of
the Office, as partially defrayed by the 'technodepreciation
insurance' premiums’ proceeds from the affected, covered enterprises.

The timing, and the scope-of-impact, of technological innovations in the
Equitarian social context, as in the preceding Capitalist social context,
involve uncertainty.

Therefore all 'Stewardship Equity' enterprises, holding current
"branch-standard"/"best-practices" social property in
Stewardship, might be required, by action of the electorate, or of its elected
legislature, to maintain 'technodepreciation insurance' policies, via periodic
payment of premiums to the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property'.Or not:purchase of such insurance might be left as an option for each
Stewardship Equity Cooperative to decide upon, by majority vote of its entire
citizen stewards membership.

The goal of a technodepreciation insurance requirement might be to insure that
sufficient productive resources were set-aside, and held in reserve at all
times — resources sufficient to facilitate rapid response to 'standards / best
practices transition' court orders from the Social Property Court(s), via
timely response to contractual orders for the production of new-vintage means
of production "plant and equipment", and retraining services, received
from the 'Office of the Custodian of Social Property', by those
'Stewardship Equity' enterprises that specialize in the construction of such
"plant and equipment", and in [re-]training(s) in its safe and
effective use.

By such a social system design, society as a whole, the social majority, gains
from rapid economy-wide adoption of proven innovations in productivity and
product quality, and incentives to such innovation are preserved, without
penalizing or bankrupting the holders of the means of production thereby
rendered obsolete, by penalties which would otherwise impose unnecessary, non-beneficial
harm, and which might otherwise also foster a parochial, anti-social opposition
to the social good of social productivity-enhancing innovation.

This text often uses 'word-embedded parentheticals' to
'appropriate' the ambiguities in current English usages, so as to amplify the
meaning of a given phrase or sentence, by creating two [or more]
distinct, but semantically parallel, or semantically convergent,
readings of that "single" line.

Example A:

The phrase 'the dialectic of human-social formation(s)' is intended to
invoke two distinct but convergent readings: (1) 'the
dialectic of human-social formation', and (2) 'the dialectic of human-social formations'.

Likewise, the phrase 'The Dialectic of [the] Human[ized Portion of] Nature'
is meant to evoke two 'mutually-supplementary' readings: (1) 'The Dialectic
of Human Nature', and (2) 'The Dialectic of the
Humanized Portion of [total] Nature', i.e., of the portions of nature
containing the '''self-objectifications''' of humanity,
etched and inscribed into the [pre-human-]natural material via
human labor.

It is designed to evoke four convergent readings, namely (1) the social relations ofproduction;
(2) 'the social relations of social reproduction';
(3) 'the social-relations of social-relations-self-reproduction',
and; (4) 'the social relations of human-society's 'self-production'.

The concept of '''the
social relations of production''', in the Marxian tradition, is paired with that
of '''the social forces of production''', so that this multiple reading is also
linked to that of the phrase 'thesocial [self-]force(s)of [human-society/social-relations [self-[re-]]production
[/ [[‘self-[‘re-]]productivity[’/‘[self-]transformativity’].

Notes on Our Use of Text Coloration

Wherever color emphasis occurs in this text, whether within quotations or
otherwise, the color-coding standard applied is as follows:

Red text signifies entities which conduce to the 'meta-catabolic' (-1), annihilatory species of opposition [For an
explanation of how red emphasis is applied, see "Notes on Our Use of
Emphasis" below.];

Blue text that has not been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined,
signifies neutrality (±0),
or the complementary species of opposition (e.g., the [mutually-inclusive/]‘mutin’-defining,
e.g., the type of opposition between the "north" versus
"south" poles of a magnet);

Blue text that has been emboldened, italicized and/or underlined,
signifies that which conduces to the supplementary (+1), 'successory', or 'supercessory' species of
opposition (e.g., 'contra-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes thesis;
'uni-thesis' succeeds, supplements, and opposes both thesis and
'contra-thesis').

Notes on Our Use of Emphasis

Throughout the authored passages in this “Malady and Remedy” text,
emphasis is denoted at intensifying levels, by combining the following text
traits, in the following order of increasing emphasis:

The italic underline-bold degree of
emphasis is also used for the titles of books.

Notes on Our Use of Emphasis within Quotations

Throughout the quoted passages included within this “Malady and Remedy”
text, all italicized,underlined, emboldened,
or colored
emphasis, and combinations thereof -- unless otherwise noted locally -- has been added by the anonymous author(s) of this
text.

Notes on Our Use of Indentation

Longer quotations are indented — as are longer lists — in both cases, for
visual clarity.

Notes on Our Use of Headers

The document is divided up by banners and headers (a.k.a.,
"headings"), which get smaller as the "h"-size gets larger.

The title uses an
"h1"-sized yellow-on-blue banner.

Main sections use the "h2"-sized green-on-blue banners.

Hypotheses and main topics begin with an "h5"-sized blue-on-green
header.

Hypotheses and main topics use the "h6"-sized blue-on-green
headers to denote their sub-topics.

There are several
distinct modes by which '''growth of the productive force''' — or growth
of the productivity — of capital "plant and equipment", in
competitive use, manifests, and generates, technological, obsolescence depreciation
effects, back upon already-installed, earlier-vintage "plant and
equipment" capital.

Moreover, these modes of manifestation can — and typically do — occur in
combination, as well as in concert — '''entangled'''; "all mixed up";
difficult to delineate.

Some of these modes raise the profitability of their leading installers'
capital "plant and equipment" — transiently and locally — by reducing
the cost of labor per unit of the commodities output for
"alienation", or sale, by that capital "plant and equipment":
so-called '''labor[-cost] saving
innovations'''.

Some others of these modes raise the profitability of their leading installers'
capital "plant and equipment" — transiently and locally — by reducing
the purchase cost of that "plant and equipment" — for replacement, or
for new first installers, relative to the purchase prices paid by previous
installers — and/or by reducing the cost(s) of other ingredients/inputs per
unit of that new-vintage fixed-capital's commodities output — e.g., raw
materials costs, auxiliary materials costs, and/or other operating costs of
that fixed-capital "plant and equipment": so-called "capital saving" and/or ‘‘‘expense(s)
saving’’’ innovations.

These multiple modes of manifestation of productivity-growth-induced technological,
obsolescence depreciation effects include the following:

Case 1
There are cases where present vintages of "the same old" design-«species»
of a given design-«genos» of capital "plant and
equipment" costs less to purchase than did previous vintages of "the
same old" design-«species» of a given design-«genos»
of capital "plant and equipment".

In such cases, productivity growth in the companies, in the processes of
production, and/or in the design of the 'meta' "plant and
equipment", which produce this present design-«species» of
capital "plant and equipment", may have itself lowered the cost per
unit of this present, "same old" design-«species» of
capital "plant and equipment" means of production, in the
"production of means of production" department of industry.

This situation potentially enables the purchasers of the present, less costly
vintages, in a competitive situation, to (a) lower
the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices
charged by their previous-vintage-owning competitors, without lowering the
profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage design-«species»,
or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their previous-vintage-owning
competitors, while potentially reaping a higher unit profit-margin in their
profit-returns, vis-a-vis their previous-vintage-owning competitors' unit
profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to (c)
set the unit price of their commodity output in a way which combines the
opposite extremes advantages alternatives, (a)
and (b), in an '''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing'''
manner.

Case 2
There are cases in which the present, new design-«species», of a
certain design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment"
cost less for capitalists to purchase than did the present, old design-«species»
of that same design-«genos», while both the old and the new
design-«species» produce commodity output (a) of the same quality, (b) at the same rate with respect to time, and (c) with the same operating costs. In such cases, the design of the capital
"plant and equipment" itself has been improved, in a way which
reduces the cost of production of "plant and equipment" of the new
design-«species» vis-a-vis "plant and equipment"
of the older design-«species».

Or, perhaps, the present vintages of the new design-«species»
cost the same to initially purchase as do the present vintages of the old
design-«species», but the new design-«species»
costs less to run than does the old — less labor-cost (for example, less
skilled labor required), and/or less raw materials cost, and/or less auxiliary
materials costs, and/or less power-cost, etc., while still producing commodity
output (a) of the same quality, and (b) at the same rate with respect to time.

In all of these sub-cases of Case 2,
the design of the capital "plant and equipment" itself has improved,
raising productivity with respect to the commodity output of that "plant
and equipment", by reducing the quantity/cost of some or all of the
required inputs per unit of that fixed-capital plant's commodity output.

Such a mode of capital "plant and equipment" productivity raising, or
'''productive force increase''', tends thereby to reduce the cost of
production of each unit of that commodity output.

That cost of production reduction 'potentiates' a profitable
lowering of the unit price of that commodity output on the market, relative to
the higher unit prices that typically must be charged by competitors stuck with
"plant and equipment" of the same «genos», but of
earlier design(s) «species», inferior in this sense.

That is, this situation potentially enables the owners of the new-vintage
design-«species», in a competitive situation, to (a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis
the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without
lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage
design-«species», or to (b) match
the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while
potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis
their old-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to
(c) set the unit price of their commodity output in
a way which combines the opposite extremes advantages alternatives, (a) and (b), in an
'''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.

Case 3
There are cases in which new vintages, new design-«species» of
the same design-«genos» of capital "plant and
equipment" cost the same as the old vintage/old design-«species»
of that same design-«genos», both to purchase, and to
run/operate, per unit of commodity output over the
expected physical, wear-and-tear depreciation "life" of that
"plant and equipment", and in which both the new and the old design-«species»
produce commodity output of the same quality/‘‘‘utility’’’.

The exception in this case, is that the new-vintage design-«species»
can produce its commodity output faster, i.e., at an accelerated
rate, as measured in commodity-units output per unit of operating time,
relative to the time rate of output of the old-vintage design-«species».

This profitability-advantage of the new-vintage design-«species»
spreads unit labor expenses, and some other expenses that are charged per unit
of time, e.g., rent-expenses, etc., over a larger volume of units of commodity output
per unit of time than can the old-vintage design-«species».

This advantage thus potentially enables, in a competitive situation, the owners
of the new-vintage design-«species», to (a) lower the unit price of their commodity output, vis-a-vis
the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, without
lowering the profit margin of the profit-returns to the owners of the new-vintage
design-«species», or to (b) match
the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning competitors, while
potentially reaping a higher profit-margin in their profit-returns, vis-a-vis
their old-vintage-owning competitors' profit-margins/-returns, or, finally, to
(c) set the unit price of their commodity output in
a way which combines the opposite extremes advantages alternatives, (a) and (b), in an
'''intermediate''' or '''hybridizing''' manner.

Case 4
There are cases in which new-vintage, new design-«species» of the
same design-«genos» of capital "plant and equipment"
cost the same as the old-vintage, old design-«species» of the
same design-«genos», both to initially purchase,
and to run/operate, and in which both run and produce their
commodity-outputs at the same 'run-rate', but where the new-vintage, new
design-«species» produces a higher ‘‘‘utility’’’ product, a
qualitatively better product, as its commodity output — a
commodity output of higher quality/utility than that of the commodity output
generated by the old-vintage, old-design-«species».

This case features growth of productivity, or of '''productive force''',
not in terms of the cost of the capital "plant and equipment" itself,
nor in terms of the design of the capital "plant and equipment", nor
in terms of the cost of the inputs that this capital "plant and
equipment" requires to produce its commodity output, nor in terms of the
"run-rate" or “output-rate” of this capital "plant and
equipment", but, on the contrary, in terms of the design of
the product — of the design of the commodity output — of that
capital "plant and equipment".

In this case, that commodity output has been improved in terms of its use-value,
making that new-vintage, new design-«species» output more
desirable, even if it sells for the same unit price, or even,
within limits, for a higher unit price, relative to the unit
price of the commodity output of the old-vintage, old-design-«species»
capital "plant and equipment".

This improvement in the useful quality of the commodity output thus potentially
enables the owners of the new-vintage design-«species», in a
competitive situation, to (a) increase the unit price of
their commodity output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning
competitors, without lowering the demand for their higher price, but higher
utility, commodity output, thus increasing their profit margins and
profit-returns vis-a-vis those of those competitors', or to (b) match the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning
competitors, while potentially reaping a higher profit-mass in their
profit-returns, due to the higher volume/quantity of their units of commodity
output demanded at that unit price, vis-a-vis the volume/quantity
demanded of those competitors' less-useful commodity output, or to (c) decrease the unit price of their commodity
output, vis-a-vis the unit prices charged by their old-vintage-owning
competitors, thus escalating the volume/quantity demanded for their lower
price, but higher utility, commodity output, thus increasing
their market share at the expense of those competitors', and potentially driving
those competitors out of business, thereby eliminating/buying-out that
competition.

For more on the 'humanocidal' intent of the core plutocracy's new,
'Soylent Green', humanocidal pseudo-religion of "People Are
Pollution", Neo-Malthusian 'Earthism', and the related, component
core-plutocracy-psycho-engineered ideologies of "Global Warming"
and "Peak Oil", see the following:

The text makes the following claim: "Both (1) reduced commodity unit-revenues from sales,
resulting from reduced commodity unit-prices, and (2) sales revenues episodically reduced by
write-offs of part or all of the historical cost of 'technodepreciated'
"plant and equipment", i.e., of "fixed capital", can
reduce the R numerator of the
profitability-measuring "Return on Investment", net-Revenue-over-fixed-capital-Investment,
or (Returns / Investment), ratio, relative to its "plant and
equipment" Investment-cost, or I, denominator.

Note that effect (2) also reduces the I
denominator, by an equal amount of techno-depreciation write-off, d, to that which reduces the R numerator, but the numerator-reduction-effect
predominates with respect to the magnitude of the "Return on Investment" ratio as a whole, for,
if I > R > d > 0, then ((R – d)/(I
– d)) <(R/I)."

Thus, we have the claim that, given any rational numbers, I, R, and d — i.e.,
given that I, R, and d "are members of" or "are elements
of" (∈), the number set Q, wherein,
Q = {...–3/2...–2/2...–1/2...0...+1/2...+2/2...+3/2...}
— the set of “Rational Numbers”, and, given that they are quantitatively
interrelated as follows: I > R > d > 0, that it
then must be the case that ((R – d)/(I – d)) <(R/I).

Using '&' to signify "and", '⇒' to signify
"implies", and "Q.E.D." to denote (the Latin phrase)
"QuodEratDemonstrandum",
or "[that] which was to be demonstrated [has been demonstrated]", we
have the following proof structure:

Given:

I, R, d∈Q&I> R > d > 0

To Prove:

I, R, d∈Q&I> R > d > 0⇒ (R/I) >(R – d)/(I – d)

Proof:

Assertion #1: R <I

Justification:This is a given.

Assertion #2: &d > 0

Justification:This is also a given.

Assertion #3: ⇒Rd < Id

Justification:
Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion #1, by the same positive factor, in this case, d, preserves the inequality.

Assertion #4: ⇒
–(Rd) >–(Id)

Justification:
Multiplying both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion #3, by the same negative Rational factor, in this
case, –1, reverses the inequality.

Assertion #5: ⇒RI+–(Rd) >RI+–(Id)⇒RI – Rd>RI–Id

Justification:
Adding the same increment, in this case, RI, to both sides of an inequality, in this case,
(Assertion 4), preserves that relationship of inequality.

Assertion #6: ⇒R(I–d) >I(R–d)

Justification:
This is achieved by "factoring", that is, by the virtue of the axiomatically-asserted
distributivity of multiplication over subtraction within the “Field” of
“Rational” numbers.

Assertion #7: &I > 0

Justification:This is one of the givens.

Assertion #8: ⇒
(R/I)(I–d) >(R–d)

Justification:
Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion #6, by the same positive factor, in this case, by I,
preserves the relationship of inequality.

Assertion #9: & I> d

Justification:This is one of the givens.

Assertion #10: ⇒
I–d > d–d

Justification:
Subtracting the same increment, in this case, d,
from both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion #9, preserves the relationship of inequality.

Assertion #11: ⇒
I–d > 0

Justification:This is by definition of
the specific “Rational” number 0.

Assertion #12: ⇒
(R/I) >(R – d)/(I–d)

Justification:
Dividing both sides of an inequality, in this case, that of Assertion #8, by the same positive factor, in this case, by (I–d), preserves the relationship of inequality. Q.E.D.